Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

Oh they would be able as odds are they are being backed by somebody with deep pockets. Privateer were effectively the "terrorists" of their day and they funded by the major powers. Pirates were those who attacked the wrong ship, ****** off the wrong ruler (or became a political liability), or went independent.


That competition could easily promote "terrorists" in the form of space faring pirates.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

Privateers couldn't single handedly destroy Spain. Besides that, it's fallen out of favor because it promotes piracy.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

There is probably justification to spin off a new thread discussing the ramifications and possible counters to having high acceleration spacecraft as a threat to planetary bodies.
What are the physics of hitting an incoming spacecraft with a high velocity object going the other way? For example. Would it break up, get reduced to a cloud of gas etc?

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

An intergalactic war? That means between galaxies. I think you meant interstellar.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

Maybe, I never got it into play so the exact scale was never determined. It was however high space opera with ships with armour hundreds of meters thick.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

They will be making their preparations for opening diplomatic contact based on the assumption that there are still substantial numbers that worship Odin and meetings between kings have to include massive slaughtering of stolen bovine creatures and extravagant drunkenness (OK they still do, kind of, but not quite the same way). They will assume they cannot be detected as long as they remain in the upper atmosphere. Etc, etc. They do not have to be a hostile mission, a friendly one works just as well.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

Actually terrorists were terrorists of the day. You know, that guy named "Guy".

Privateers were more like attack submarines.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

The aliens would be be looking for the biggest "empires" with whom to open contact with rather then any group that touched their fancy. Larger civilizations means more likely to to survive the time it takes to get there.

'Those Odin worshipping guys are clearly in decline so odds they are going to gone before we get there'

'Well there are those various smaller groups who all worship the same single god and they seem to have a single ruling head. I think he's called Pope. Though he does seem to have a control problem but that can be explained by the lack of fast transportation. There is also that large mass of land to the east ruled by an Emperor.'

'That's the longest land mass but what of the others?'

'Doesn't seem to be any kind of organization on par with the other two. Given their size I would say those will be gone before we get there. From what we have learned via our probe one of the two goes back 1500 years.'

'Ah if they have lasted this long then they will certainly be there when we arrive. They have a name?'

'The Holy Roman Empire.'

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Brutus and his supporters would be terrorists under this definition.

See above definition.

Re: New Sci Fi Setting Seeds
 

Point of clarification: by definition, "terrorism" is an act of violence performed by a non-state actor, used to promote a political agenda. The reasons for that agenda can vary widely, and can (and frequently do, especially lately) include religious extremism, but the purpose of the violence is always political, and those who commit it cannot be sponsored by or associated with any government.

Since any act of violence unsanctioned by governments are, by definition, crimes, then terrorists are, by definition, criminals. They're not soldiers, nor are they spies who commit "acts of war by other means," since an "act of war" is something that only the government of an organized state can commit. As such, response to their actions falls under the category of "law-enforcement."

Piracy is mostly theft on the high seas, with no goal other than the enrichment of the pirates at the expense of others. It's certainly criminal, but not political. Once again, response falls under the category of "law-enforcement."

Privateers usually hold letters of marque from a government (in fact, that's what makes them "privateers" instead of "pirates") that supposedly allow them to target ships of a nation's political opponents. The letters of marque also allow them to dispose of any proceeds in, and access the services of, any port controlled by the sponsoring nation.

Since privateers are state-sponsored, they can't be terrorists, by definition. They actually are enemy combatants engaged in state-sponsored "acts of war by other means." That means the proper response falls under the category of "military action."

So, while a violent group with a political agenda could certainly choose to commit an act of terrorism on the high seas (or in space, where nautical law applies) in order to promote their agenda, they wouldn't count as either pirates (thieves on the seas) or privateers (state-sponsored actors).

Without going into the sort of specifics that we can't do, any longer, without risking a ban, I'll just say that any categorization of a terrorist as an "enemy combatant," is pretty much utter BS, with no basis in law.